Hawaii gov. buys more time on civil unions bill (Doesn't look good)

[WillParkinson]

Hawaii gov. buys more time on civil unions bill
By The Associated Press
06.22.2010 9:30am EDT

(Honolulu) Gov. Linda Lingle on Monday bought herself two more weeks to make a decision on legislation that would allow same-gender couples to form civil unions.

At a press conference at the state Capitol, Lingle announced the bill is one of 39 measures on a list of potential vetoes she was required to unveil by Monday.

She stressed that its appearance on the list doesn’t necessarily mean it will be vetoed – although she said historically, that’s what happens to most bills on the list.

The Republican governor said she is “still considering everyone’s point of view” on the civil unions issue, which she called the most difficult of the measures still before her.

“What makes it the most difficult is the intensity of the feeling on the part of the public. I don’t know of another bill that comes close to that,” she said.

“I can tell you that throughout this process, I’ve gone back and forth” on whether to sign the bill, she added.

http://www.365gay.com/news/hawaii-gov-buys-more-time-on-civil-unions-bill/

[racaulk]

1. You're right, it doesn't look good for that bill.

Lingle likely knows that there are not votes in the state legislature to override her veto, if she decides on that route, as the bill barely passed in the first place. I hope she understands and fully grasps the almost unilateral power she holds in this situation and chooses to do the right thing.

K&R

[Unvanguard]

2. To think that our lives and our families are vulnerable to the whims of people like this

is profoundly disturbing.

"Should I or shouldn't I accept that same-sex couples are actually (sorta-kinda) equal citizens under the law?" :eyes:

[David__77]

3. This is not even marriage. I thought these "moderates" liked civil unions. Of course not.

They lie and pretend that they support civil unions as a compromise, but they do not. I am confident that she will veto this measure.

[Unvanguard]

4. It is one of the more distressing elements of the debate.

"Why not settle for civil unions?" is by all appearances a successful political line, one that manages to marginalize the case for marriage equality. But whenever we attempt to make this compromise, to actually settle (for the time being) for civil unions, suddenly it's "Well, they're basically the same as marriage, so let's oppose those too!"

The sad fact of the matter, indicated clearly in the paucity of civil unions arrangements in US states and the continued failure to repeal DOMA, is that many of the people who claim to support civil unions merely do so as a hedge against being accused of discriminating, and do not actually support even "separate but equal" legal arrangements for same-sex couples. There is no other explanation for the fact, for instance, that Referendum 71 was so close even in a reasonably liberal "blue" state like Washington.